Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

I have something for AOB.

Noted

Here is the link to the document on display: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZzjHw/edit#heading=h.vggepvpizwpy

Guardrails submitted weeks ago

@Paul - what is your definition of ‘guardrail’ - -?

@Jeff - don't see my proposal in this latest document. What happened?

np

@Jeff - the Board didn't say a peep about concerns over JVs. They did raise private auctions. We are out over our skis if we are going to make people disclose business plans inherent in a JV.

TLD has to be in the root within 2 years anyways. How is this new?

Ken seems to have dropped off

it looks like Ken may have dropped off

And if you have cool strings - and strong opponents: you might lose all of them. There is nothing you can do about it.....

What happens if there is the rebuttable presumption of Non-good faith intent? What is the effect?

@Marc - that is one of the questions for discussion

@Paul - JV arrangement could be “partners until the TLD launches, and then all but one are “bought out” by a sole owner. Too easily gamed.

Real "use" would be launching the startup phases that you propose in your application; e.g. sunrise

@Marc, that's under "Outstanding Discussion Items"

Christopher does raise a good point about the cost of implication in time and resources.

if you don't have a sunrise - you are likely a brand Spec 13 and won't have contention anyways.

any costs would be rolled into application fee so ICANN would recoup.

@Jeff and Justine - I get that but think its difficult to know if the criteria for this determination are "right" without discussing the effect

And the 10% ownership: what if nobody owns more than 9.9%? Then no owner needs to be disclosed?

Need to add that explicitly. Thanks!

Not obvious to me.

We should revert this: if in an applicant entity more than 2/3 of ownership are less than 10% each: then ALL owners have to be disclosed!

so the evaluations will go ahead BEFORE the contention set resolutions along the applicants critical path ??

Sealed bids should be submitted for private and ICANN auctions, at the same time.

right - let's exclude everyone in this wg then

Single point in time so that applicants have to be very thoughtful about the value of the bid

I think Paul is compromising to try and make this work. In response to CW comment…

indeed @Martin and I look forward to hearing from @Jim now

and of course @Alexander all as we continue to discuss and refine

@Jim see my comments from above!

Thanks Martin. Yes, just trying to get us to a compromise we can all live with.

Sealed bids and aggressive time frames don't take into account outcomes from Objections, GAC Early Warning, Public Comments, etc. so they don't make sense in the context of private auctions.

A tidying up comment: any reference to appeals holding up either auctions should include challenges - since we are using challenges against evaluations and appeals against objections / COI allegations.

Good question. Are those the same as in the Application? Is that information public? Why wouldn't we just put through an Application change?

Why not list everyone?

@Elaine - do applicants list everyone in the application? I can't remember what the percentages of ownership are.

@Paul, why not?

(Not, why can’t you remember, but why not list everyone? What does it matter?)

2012 AGB says 15%. Why 10%

10% is a standard used by regulatory agencies in the US, and some other countries

But I don't see a huge difference between 10 and 15%

Why a different standard for these kinds of applicants? Why are creating a second class applicant?

So if the group wants to use 15, that's fine

The bids can be submitted at the same time. reveal could happen at staggered times

but I will address in writng

to garb=ner general support

garner

we could have auction BATCHES!

idea : do the private sealed bid auctions first , before doing the evaluations . as a result there would be a huge saving of monies and time . this would work for the vast majority of contention sets .

@Phil, and what happens when the winner get's kicked out?

@Phil, that doesn't seem particularly fair given there are a number of hoops applicants have to go through.

Agree Jeff - this is a moving target to try and find some middle ground between the ideas proposed and discussed along the way

yes

@Phil - sealed bids before Evaluation, Objections, GAC Early Warning, Public Comment, etc. are premature. Members of contention sets can be eliminated by any number of items and that affects not only auction prices but whether or not there even needs to be an auction.

I will look into that and let you know

Thanks @Jim/Elaine

Pick your favorite Paul. Just need some oversight

you're kidding, it's being proposed we have to

go and get permission for competition authorities? is that every applicant who resolves contention? why/ isn't that their risk?

Thanks for the feedback. Will consider it and respond.

thanks Paul

@Elaine - +Paul: the reference to Competition authorities seems only valid in the US, not for the rest of the world. That is why when the EU agreed to the creation of ICANN, it was on the basis of ICANN ITSELF functioning as the global competition regulator for this sector.

Your OK re Chat @Jeff

@Jeff - maybe when we have this in numbered paragraphs instead of bullet points, that will help

See we could say "except as required in paragraph X"

@Jeff - for clarity, we are talking only about sealed bids in the context of auctions of last resort, correct?

Estimate the value of the TLD up front ,deposit a lot of money, and then make everyone pay to go through the Objections etc. Sealed bids front load a lot of expense for applicants, especially new market entrants.

Deposit only once the auction of last resort commences. Like in 2012.

+1 Alexander

Agree Alexander

agree Alexander

agreed Alexander

Noted....

So the modified JV applicant doesn't inherent the prior sealed bid for that application #?

NDA at initial bid

I agree with Donna. Suggest exploring Pauls inheritng.

definitely a leg up . agree Donna

Really? Please clarify.

A fresh sealed bid for everyone or an inherited seal bids seems more fair

I like fresh for everyone

How does multiplier / bid credit feature in all of this?

But doesn't forcing the inherited sealed bid disadvantage 2 small applicants who have joined forces in order to go forward

change of circumstances - so second sealed bid required ?

@Susan - I think that is right. Fresh for all seems better

I don't think you can assume a JV is innovative. The JV could actually provide for a payment to the parties giving up their applications.

Doesn't this come back to a timing issue overall?

The issue is the JV partner who gets the AS multiplier

the leg up is that now the JV knows who they are up to (which they didn't before).

So how is that determined?

Christa has raised issues with the multiplier on email.

Even if its only one - its a race to the AS applicant to get the mulitplier

For consideration, at least.

Unlikely that TWO members in one contention set qualify for applicant support....

take the multiplier away

Sealed bids raise a lot of problems. What were they meant to solve?

+1 paul

“Ascending clock” is the terminology I believe

not by lots of us they weren't Jeff

Me too! @Jeff

Private resolution using private auctions was always on the table.

I don’t believe there was overwhelming support for sealed bids Jeff

Didn't mean to open up the worm can.

Sealed bids is a compromise position to allow for private auctions

exactly Donna, so why have the private auctions now become sealed bid?

So for Auctions of Last Resort, you may be correct, but I honestly don't recall.

That is the method the auction expert who briefed the group suggest as the best option for future rounds. Jeff tried to get others to talk to us but they refused.

@Jeff - can you clarify in the chat that we are not saying sealed bids are required for private auctions.

Some confusion here: We are not dictating anything about how private auctions work

Thanks Jeff!

Private resolution can be resolved privately, but all details must be disclosed

Sarah proposed Vickrey auction

+1 Jeff, no change to sealed bid concept, only to timing of bid.

@Jamie, I think that's not a bad option that the JV should pick one of the bids.

I think either option works, but I like resubmit better

+1 Donna, would remove headache too

Yeah - I didn't think we were landing on anything on this call as this was just presented. people need time to review this with the benefit of time.

noted @Jamie

Correct @Paul just reviewing the new text

@CLO, I think you meant Correct @Jim...

a JV doesn’t neccessarily more money on the table for the auction

Indeed @Paul I must have your @name on auto que ;-)

@Jeff, also consequences

of violations

@CLO - hahahahha!

:-)

Can an applicant withdraw their sealed bid for another reason other than being removed from the regular process i.e. they spent their auction funds and would avoid defaulting on payment?

No..not the application just the bid

Right.

or accept a private resolution, which avoids revealing the bid

Yep

Just noting to the group that if this call does not wrap a little early today several of us including Staff will need to attend the Extraordinary GNSO Council call at the half hour will be leaving around the 20-25 past or so mark

...Concerns and mitigations

At least it has the early sealed bids (before applicant entities are revealed) - and publication requirements for private resolution. That's much more than in 2012.

So we move in the right direction

agree with Anne

it's the only way that things will make sense

If we can have icann auction BATCHES (so that portfolio applicants can't much use auction proceeds for other auctions): that would be better. So after a few months all auctions of unobjected applications - and a second batch later...

we're in 7 now

+1 Alexander

Note that most of my ‘can’t live withs’ were not discussed.

@Alexander, but it takes time to get through Objections, GAC Early Warnings, Evaluations, etc. so that the content sets are stable. That is why accelerated auctions of last resort don't work.

Sorry we have to leave for GNSO Council call

@ Alexander - BATCHES +1.

Enjoy that GNSO Council call! haha!

yep

bye

NEXT CALL: Monday, 20 July 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.